What characterizes "circumstantial evidence"?

Circumstantial evidence is defined by its nature of requiring inferences to connect the evidence presented to a conclusion about a fact. This type of evidence does not directly prove a fact but suggests a conclusion based on the circumstances surrounding the case. For instance, if a person is seen near a location where a crime occurs shortly after hearing a gunshots, this observation alone does not prove that they committed the crime, but it can lead to the inference that they might be involved based on circumstances.

In contrast, other types of evidence mentioned in the choices directly relate to different forms and sources of proof. Evidence based on direct observation typically involves witnessing an event firsthand, which does not fit the inference-based nature of circumstantial evidence. Expert witnesses provide specialized knowledge to clarify issues in a case, rather than relying on circumstantial observations. Physical testimony might pertain to firsthand accounts or direct evidence rather than inferring facts from circumstances. Thus, circumstantial evidence distinctly stands out by its reliance on inferential reasoning to connect evidence to factual conclusions.